94 So. 3d 964
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellees sought to stave off foreclosure by leasing the school property from Sheets, the mortgagee, for six months starting April 2008.
- The asset transfer to Inner City and Brandon Group occurred in 2007–2008, with Harris owning ABS and AP at that time and later transferring control to Inner City/Brandon.
- Inner City paid April–June 2008 rent; later halted payments after the sale failed and licensing/ownership transitions stalled.
- Sheets sued for July–August 2008 rent; Inner City and Bishop Brandon defended by arguing disturbance of possession and forbearance-related issues.
- Trial court ruled for Inner City/Bishop Brandon on the main demand and granted Harris $20,000 on third-party claims; judgment against certain parties remained unresolved.
- On appeal, the court reversed the trial court: Sheets’ main demand for unpaid rent was granted; Harris’s unjust enrichment claim against him was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disturbance of possession voids rent obligation | Sheets argues Inner City’s disruption voids rent due. | Inner City asserts forbearance/ownership transitions prevented dispossession. | Disturbance did not negate rent; Sheets may recover unpaid rent. |
| Whether Sheets’ ownership status affects lease validity | Sheets’ status as mortgagee owner-to-be preserves lease obligations. | Inner City/Brandon controlled assets; lease invalid if lessor lacked ownership. | Lease binding despite Sheets’ non-ownership; forbearance valid. |
| Whether Harris/third parties are liable for unjust enrichment | Thir-party plaintiffs were enriched by rent and taxes paid on Sheets’ behalf. | Enrichment arises from contractual forbearance; no unjust enrichment against Harris. | No unjust enrichment against Harris; third-party claims against Harris reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCurdy v. Bloom’s Inc., 907 So.2d 896 (La.App.2d Cir. 2005) (definitions of possession disturbance and eviction concepts)
- Hall v. James, 986 So.2d 817 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (unjust enrichment elements pre-enactment of Article 2298)
- Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 837 So.2d 1207 (La. 2003) (unjust enrichment framework and constraints)
- Bell Foundry Co. v. Lonnie McCurry’s Four Wheel Drive Center, Inc., 75 So.3d 529 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (judgment silence presumptively denies asserted claims)
- Action Revenue Recovery, L.L.C. v. eBusiness Group, L.L.C., 17 So.3d 999 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (interpretation of claims denied by silent judgment)